Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin DeJesus

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. MBisanz ^talk 00:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin DeJesus

There are a few reasons why I feel this page should be deleted, but I'm not certain that this is the case. The page seems to be advertising for this person's company, Diamante Pictures, especially in the last few sentences of the biography section. I suppose this can be rewritten, but the person may not be notable enough to qualify for WP:NOTE. The article makes no reference to the "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," that the notablility guideline states, and I also fear that such coverage does not exist. It has no references that illustrate this point; the only working external link is a link to the company's website, and the IMDB link does not work. Moreover, it was created by User:CreativeCross, and when the userpage's edit history is examined, it is clear that this user is Benjamin DeJesus or is affiliated with Benjamin DeJesus. This could be a conflict of interest, as someone may have just created the page to make them appear notable when they aren't, possibly even to use as a way, when communicating with clients, to make themselves seem more well-known. Maybe this is not enough to make the article qualify for deletion, but I still think that it deserves to be listed and discussed. Codename Colorado (My User Page) (My Talk Page) 21:32, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Living people-related deletion discussions. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 00:02, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable. Can't find third party sources of value. WP:COI is a secondary concern, but not the reason for deletion Vartanza (talk) 06:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I haven't done the research needed to give an opinion about the disposition of this article, but I feel I must commend the nominator on the way the nomination is written. AfD usually seems to be a place where civility policy is completely ignored, with accusations of "vanity" or worse being made on the slightest of evidence, so I hope the wording of this nomination will act as an example to other nominators. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.